Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "California legislators are moving forward with plans to create a public, online, animal abuser registry identical in function to the public sex offender registry. Is this the slippery slope to further government mandated lists and registries?"

There will always be a stigma associated to certain types of crimes. Animal abuse is one of them. Long after they serve their far too short sentences they will still get to live with what they've done... and we'll get to share the knowledge of their past with them.

This is where those people want to take this. How much animal abuse is by teenagers with a thing for cats and how many of these convictions are for farmers. How many are serious convictions and how many are you forgot some technicality when constructing the horse shelter? As it stands today, in MA, professional licenses are pulled when you are a felon, on a sex registry (you don't have to be a felon...), under a RO, owe child support, etc. By doing this it allows them to exert control over people who have served their time. These registries are bad news.

Just to let everyone know, the parent poster (Slashdot#175151) is a known jaywalker. Disregard any attempts he makes at sounding civic-minded. He's a disgrace to society and his mother is ashamed of him. Additionally, a girl thought he was approaching her inappropriately at a party three years ago.

From what I have seen of sex offender registries (from living in two states) they include some case information. That information is usually ignored from my anecdotal experience. I was told the other day that a neighbor about three houses down the street is on the registry. When I asked why the guy is on the registry, they couldn't give me an answer.

I can't stand PETA in general, but (hypocritical as they are) this is one of their few campaigns I *do* support. The fact is, most unwanted pets are not going to find homes, so it's better to take them in, make an effort to place them, and then humanely euthanize them (which no, is NOT animal abuse) than to abandon them at a trash dump, throw them off a pier, or beat them with a club.

If they didn't violate the trust of people who send animals to them, thinking that it'll be good for the animal... I might agree.

Don't give an unwanted animal to PETA. Give them to the Humane Society. They'll try. They spend money on actual animals, instead of just obnoxious advertising campaigns and donations to terrorist groups who firebomb research labs and the like.

No. First of all, animals raised in human company are pretty much permanently stuck in a juvenile state. They have not been taught to fend for themselves and the urban and suburban environments aren't the same thing as "the wild" - available resources are far more restricted. Don't think that because your cat occasional brings a bird to the stoop that it could live a healthy life without any human support.

I think we should do an experiment. Release [telegraph.co.uk] pets [suite101.com] into [ca.gov] the [abc.net.au] wild [nwsource.com] and see [scienceblogs.com] what [audubonmagazine.org] happens [iguanainvasion.com].

You're dodging the issue, though. They are not unable to find food and water because of their domestication. They are unable to find it because it is not there to be found. The links I provided make it obvious that a certain percentage survive even in relatively harsh environments where they were never meant to live on their own. Nobody is suggesting releasing animals in such environments. There are plenty of places where food and water are plentiful. Release them in the woods near a continuous stream

If the animals were abused, under the definition of "abuse" propounded by this law (I assume it specifically defines abuse), then why not? This is why I buy my meat from local farmers, and I'm completely aware of how it's raised and slaughtered. Meat's way more expensive this way, but I don't eat that much meat in the first place, and I figure if I can buy some humane treatment for the animals, why not.

(I'm making these remarks somewhat tongue-in-cheek... I'm not particularly zealous about animal rights. There's certain ones I like to eat, and I don't feel too horrible about animals food with humane handling while they're alive. But I do think that systemically perpetrated suffering while the animals are alive presents a moral probl

Apparently you have not paid any attention on how actual farming is implemented recently.

It's not quite the land of sunshine that is painted on the tele.

No, I'm afraid farming today is fairly beyond the concept of humane.

That's what pisses me off about groups like PETA: sometimes, they're right. There is abuse in farms. A lot. I'm not saying every farm does it, but it happens. When PETA goes out talking about farm cruelty, they might turn some heads, but then they follow that up by stripping naked and saying that eating meat makes you worse than Hitler (but naturally, stuff like this [smbc-comics.com] is fine and dandy). And that's where they lose people. People dismiss all their claims.

At the end of the day, their stupid antics only hurt the animals. Do they talk about sustainable fishing? No, they talk about 'sea-kittens.' Do they talk about humane animal testing? No, they want to end all testing (except for PETA VP Mary Beth Sweetland's insulin) in favor of non-existent models and cripple medical science. Do they advocate decent living conditions for farm animals? No, say farm animals completely equivalent to Jews during the Holocaust.

They're not about what's best for the animals, they're on a feel good quest for attention. Well, screw them.

I have worked with cows and chickens. I grew up on a ranch, worked on a dairy, and occasionally helped out a friend who worked on a chicken ranch. Cattle are not very bright beasts. The calves will drink their mothers' milk until their innards burst, and the adults are content, so long as they know where to find the food. As for chickens... I just cannot feel remorse for any alleged suffering that has been applied to a creature whose behavior does not change, after its head has been removed, leaving only a portion of its brain stem.

In my experience with these creatures, I have not seen any evidence of sentience. They have no ability to behave outside of instinct, and insofar as I can tell, memory is only established through repetition.

These animals are not people. They are food.

Now, I can understand the concept of a "Sex Offenders" registry. Victims of rape or pedophilia experience a lasting and significant impact on their lives, from the events, impacting everything from their feelings of personal security and self-confidence, to even grander things such as sexual orientation (and all of its permutations). The desires that inspired sex offenders to perform the act(s) which got them on the list are generally not the sort of thing that one leaves behind in his life, but rather, something that (s)he must live with, indefinitely. Therefore, keeping a publicly accessible registry of these people is, more or less, a fair thing to do.

Animal abuse, however, is generally not driven by hormones that are persistent through life, but rather, the adolescent hormone cocktail, or general ignorant belligerence. It's really not the sort of thing that needs a registry, because the behavior can be effectively turned off with minimal effort, or may even go away on its own. Normal punitive measures are generally sufficient. To require people involved in this sort of crime to add their names to a public registry is ridiculous.

The logic behind "registries", not that I'm a fan of them, is based on the perceived danger of the offender, and likelihood of re-offending(and, in practice, the degree of public revulsion toward that particular crime), not on the seriousness of the crime per se. If seriousness of crime were the criterion, we would have started with a murderer's registry and worked down from there.

Now, I think all of these criminal registries are a bad idea. If somebody is so dangerous that they need to be on a special public list and announce themselves to their neighbors, and never live within a thousand yards of pretty much anything, and so forth, why are they out of jail? If they are not, in fact, that dangerous, how can viciously hounding them for petty political gain possibly do anything but increase their chances of re-offending? You don't want a potential criminal drifting from odd job to odd job, living at a mixture of no fixed address and really shitty parts of town. That's just a recipe for them to do something else in the future. You want them enmeshed in all the cares of a solid citizen with a white picket fence and a mortgage as quickly as possible. Plus, of course, there is the well documented stream of absurd cases, 16/18 couples, yobbish but harmless public urinators, that poor bastard who was wandering around inside his own house without the shades drawn. Just not a good idea. The idea that there are people safe enough to release from jail; but so dangerous that they must be stigmatized forever seems absurdly contradictory; and the consequences of that notion are bad for liberty.

However, that said, I don't think animal abuse cases are any less logical than sex crime cases for the (admittedly bad) idea of a registry. Again, registries are about an individual's dangerousness. This is generally established through some sort of crime, so they end up being based on more or less serious crimes; but the motive is to identify dangerous people(an ordinary criminal record keeps track of crimes). Animal abuse, of the sort that actually makes it to court(which usually implies animal abuse not in the context of some useful production/research activity, or within such a context; but of extraordinary depravity), is not a serious crime compared to sex crimes(since we generally accord animals substantially less moral personhood than we do people, harming them just isn't as serious); but people who harm animals just for giggles are, in fact, generally Bad News. Animals may not experience suffering in any morally salient way; but their pain responses are eminently convincing looking. Anybody who finds those recreational is, indeed, of deeply suspect character(if they also enjoy setting fires, you are in *cough*Macdonald triad*cough* territory).

If anything, animal abusers are probably better subjects for a registry than sex criminals are. In both cases, the crimes are evidence of serious personality and behavioral issues; but the victims of animal abusers are not as morally salient, so it is harder to justify long custodial sentences. Again, I think registries are a bad plan; but I would argue that, if there were a good place to start, it'd be animal abusers. Because such registries inevitably go skiing right down the slippery slope, they would end up containing the poor bastard at the slaughterhouse who managed to make PETA's shit list, some guy who kicked a puppy in a momentary outburst and has felt terrible and done nothing harmful ever since, and a kid who pulled the wings off a couple of mosquitos after a summer of being bitten; but those results are no more absurd than what you get with the present registries.

Or, of course, you could just throw out the crude attempt to classify people based on their crimes, and classify based on psychological evaluation. What you really want is a list of sociopaths, whether they be the blue collar flavor who flip out and kill somebody, or the white collar flavor who can keep their inhumanity in check long enough to make it through business school and do some real damage...

Or, of course, you could just throw out the crude attempt to classify people based on their crimes, and classify based on psychological evaluation. What you really want is a list of sociopaths, whether they be the blue collar flavor who flip out and kill somebody, or the white collar flavor who can keep their inhumanity in check long enough to make it through business school and do some real damage...

You should read David Brin's book Sundiver. It is set in a society that has this system. His portrayal of it seems reasonable (although "seems reasonable" and "is correct" are two very different beasts, I know), and is definitely not something I want to live in the middle of. I'd vote against this proposal.

If their punishment is too short, then extend the sentences. If the jails are too crowded, stop sending non-violent people there for the "crime" of ingesting non-state approved substances. Otherwise, stop condemning people to a lifetime of harassment by vigilantes. This goes for sex offenders and for this new animal abuse registry. If none of this persuades you, then perhaps you should consider: a)there are those who are convicted that are innocent (and are exonerated later) b)what makes it onto the registry is determined by politicians and judges, who will add things such as drunk men urinating in public to the sex offender list. Who is to say the same cannot happen for animal abuse?

Exactly. What we really need to do is stop using jails as "time out" and start only keeping violent people there. If the crime was non-violent and they don't pose a threat to society, put them on probation and make them pay restitution. If there was no one harmed to pay restitution to, how was it a crime in the first place? On the same vain, we need to elect our executive branch by allowing for the direct election, supervision and removal of police officers and make every move they make public record so we can end police brutality and abuse.

What is next? A list of people who bought cigarettes, drinks and porn?

The question is will it be as easy to get on the animal abuser list for things that have nothing to do with harming animals as it is to get on the sex offender list for things that have nothing to do with a sex offense?

My guess is with the way things are going a "gateway drug" list, after all we know that anyone who has ever smoke, drank or even did pot is now snorting coke right? And if we have an alcohol and cigarette list we will know that our kids aren't being exposed to second hand smoke and we can monitor parties! After all, its not like its a constitutional right to be able to have people to gather peacefully and do what they are legally allowed to do...

FWIW, what you're thinking of is called the MacDonald Triad [wikipedia.org]. But to be fair, what the MacDonald triad means is that while many (most?) serial killers exhibited those behaviors, but not all people who exhibit those behaviors go on to become serial killers.

Do you know what it takes to get on the list? Do you understand that some drunk guy can get on because he got drunk, went into an alley and pissed against the wall? Yeah, you merciless son of a bitch -- they nail him for indecent exposure. Right, now he can't get (or loses) any job involving contact with kids or anywhere in a lot of professions.

The only way to control a nation of free men is to turn them into criminals. And that's exactly what is happening. It's not just punishment-lust (although that is most certainly a factor) it's the desire for power. Our Founders tried to codify limits to that power in the highest law of our land. Unfortunately, zealots and sociopaths (and the two are not mutually-exclusive) are doing an end-run around those limits.

Are you batshit nuts?Who said anything about making animals people? These fuckers go on to harm people, so keeping a list of them is not a bad idea.

Also humans are nothing but animals, maybe your sky wizard superstition says otherwise but we are all just mammals. Look around we have folks who murder, who can't keep control of their impulse to eat, screw or anything else. Just like the rest of the animal kingdom.

There are no-kill shelters out there. Why not go adopt a dog or cat this weekend, and be part of the solution, instead of complaining about the problem? Dogs especially seem to understand when they've been given an extra lease on life, and they give back a lot more than they take.

VHS is better than Beta! People often compare high quality beta players with cheap VHS players, but that's not fair at all. The better VHS players have just as good an image as Beta and has longer playtime too.

It won't be long before we have public registries of parents whose kids misbehave in school, registries of people who buy pr0n, and registries of people who do anything else the masses of paranoid freak helicopter soccer moms don't like...

Seeing as that sexual offenses and inhumane treatment of animals are illegal, and the examples you cite are not illegal, I'm not really very worried. Once the things you mention become CRIMES, then I'll start worrying.

Is this an end-run around the "served your time" part? I thought our theory of law was that once you served your punishment you were a Citizen again (yeah like convicts can't have guns...). So, is this indefinite punishment? And this is coming from someone who thinks animal abusers have serious psychological problems: the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?

I'm not sure about the finite punishment bit, but as far as creating a list, and retroactively adding people to it goes, the Supreme Court has ruled that it doesn't violate the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution. I imagine they've also judged these lists as not violating the eighth amendment.

There are people on the sex offender list merely "caught" peeing in bushes and then charged with exposing themselves. And how about teens texting nude pics of themselves and charged with child porn? It has become a district attorney's game where they can claim putting X number of sex offenders away. Lots of good people's lives ruined for political bullshit. And the list itself becomes nearly worthless in telling good people from bad.

Animal abusers shouldn't be put on lists. It's disgusting what they did, th

Consider that under some interpretations, failing to license your pet is "abuse"... there have already been confiscations citing a few fleas as "abuse"... In San Francisco, failing to provide "quality food" (which is not defined by their new law) is "abuse"... the ways an ordinary pet owner could find themselves on this list is endless, everyone can play!

The title means "miserable ones" It's about a guy that was in jail, served his time and had to carry a document identifying him as a former criminal. Then pretty much everyone in society that knew he was a former criminal because of that identification made his life outside of prison a living hell. There is a lot more to it that comes later but that is the gist of the beginning.

Yes, but have you seen the paranoia over these "sex" offender registries? People are afraid to move into houses because there might be a "sex offender" living on the next block. Never mind that these people don't seem to look at the real picture and look at the trial and see that his only crime was peeing in public and he is now 73 years old and wheelchair bound. The point is, taxpayer funds are being used for this completely stupid project that adds nothing (who the hell cares if someone kicked a dog? I su

Apparently they estimate that it will take several hundred thousand dollars to run the registry annually and claim that the number of federal convictions for animal abuse in California is not large enough to levy enough fees on the convicted to fund the registry. In short, they want to levy a tax on pet food to pay for the registry.

Apparently they estimate that it will take several hundred thousand dollars to run the registry annually and claim that the number of federal convictions for animal abuse in California is not large enough to levy enough fees on the convicted to fund the registry. In short, they want to levy a tax on pet food to pay for the registry.

I live in California, and I can assure you that California Democrats never saw a spending program they didn't love or a tax they didn't vote for. The result, of course, is that businesses are leaving here as fast as they can, taking their jobs with them.

Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes.

Yeah, right. What orifice was that pulled out of.

It would also be a boon to law enforcement because animal abuse, the bill's authors' say, often escalates to violence against people.

I was once out with a woman who trained dogs. This rather large dog went ape shit towards this woman and child. The owner of the dog talked to the dog and "scolded" it for its behavior. That was it. The trainer said that the owner of the dog was an idiot because one day that dog is going to attack someone and maybe seriously hurt them or kill a child. The owner should have put that dog in a head lock, slammed it into the ground, and let in know by no uncertai

Good bye pharmaceutical and any other animal based research in California! No more hunting. Oh, and when a heard of deer needs to be thinned out, does that mean they're going to ask the deer to take birth control and leave the state? Will they offer relocation to the deer? Just wanna know.

Yeah, it's pretty messed up all right. A friend of mine who lived in California for many years recently suggested that I move there. It's when I read articles like this that I realize why I never did. Of course, this is nothing new. I remember reading about how LA's government doesn't allow the use of the word "slave" in technical documentation. This is just an extension of that same mental illness, and I hope it doesn't spread Eastward.

No more hunting. Oh, and when a heard of deer needs to be thinned out, does that mean they're going to ask the deer to take birth control and leave the state?

Yes, actually that is what they do. I'm from the midwest and in a city (I think it was near Kansas City) they were proposing opening a small (like 1 week) hunting season in this park that was overwhelmed with deer (far beyond the carrying capacity and people kept hitting deer left and right) and they seriously proposed putting birth control or something in the food to stop this overpopulation. And this is in Missouri where the first day of deer season practically is a state holiday! Let alone what the idi

The problem is, the excess deer are already here. You can give them birth control and cut future increases, but most of the ones that are already here are still going to live another 10 years or so -- well, unless starvation and consequent disease kills them first (as it will, once they've finished denuding their environment). Wildlife overpopulation usually leads to a massive die-off, and a lingering death from starvation or disease is a lot more cruel than a quick death from a bullet.

The simplest solution is to stop hunting the mountain lions in California, since they are the primary deer predator. They would have the deer populations in check in just a few years. But that would cut into the profits of the developers who keep destroying natural habitats and insist we kill all the dangerous wildlife (since if you buy your multi-million dollar home on the edge of the wilderness you don't actually want any dangerous wildlife to visit). And all the ranchers who aren't willing to take the ti

The registry is just a new way to levy another tax (on pet food) that said, the registry applies to *felony convictions of animal abuse* in California. Unless hunting is now a felony in California, it will not show up on this list.

This is from a state that requires warning labels to be put on anything more than pure water (and even then they are probably attempting to pass a bill with a warning sticker "This product contains Water a chemical known to the state of California to cause drowning and water poisoning"), who basically is bankrupt, who thinks they need to tax everything for the little they do to help the people and now have this. The people running California, I'd have to say, are basically brain-dead idiots.

Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes.

Yeah, right. What orifice was that pulled out of.

Um, that's kind of like basic criminology [wikipedia.org] and stuff. Just read through the histories of a few killers on Wikipedia and see how many 'got their start' killing neighbors cats (Edward Emil Kemper lll) or burning the eyes out of crabs with matches (Andrew Cunanan).

As always, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of people do not think about anything. Nobody stops to think about the other registries we have, or the fact that we are publicly shaming people for less and less serious crimes, or the fact that people who are released from prison are supposed to have the right to put the past behind them.

This is not a system that can last forever, but it is going to get a hell of a lot worse before it falls apart.

I predict that it will not stop until we are ALL wearing *some* sort of scarlet letter.:(

BTW under other legislation being pushed by this same HSUS-backed crowd, owning more than N-many animals is "abuse" (how well they're cared for is absolutely irrelevant), and breeding pets AT ALL is also "abuse". Best-practices for some types of livestock have already been classed as "abuse". The fact is, such a registry will expand right along with these irrational laws, until everyone who owns a purebred dog is included, everyone who hunts is included, and everyone who farms is included.

I like to think I am as objective as they come. I am for privacy. I hate "for the children" mentality.

But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose some of that rationality. Animal abusers are dangerous and cant be trusted. And I believe it is a behavior that once practiced may never leave a person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there to harm people, especially given a one in a million encounter.

But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose some of that rationality. Animal abusers are dangerous and cant be trusted. And I believe it is a behavior that once practiced may never leave a person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there to harm people, especially given a one in a million encounter.

Same thing could be said for any number of behaviours. Let me reword your post.

But when it comes to porn watching, I loose some of that rationality. porn watchers are dangerous and cant be trusted. And I believe it is a behavior that once practiced may never leave a person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there to have sex with someone, especially given a one in a million encounter.

And hopefully you will see how stupid it sounds.

Sure, let animal abusers serve their time. Even give'em a job. Good luck feeling inner piece when your daughter says she is going camping with him, when his little discresion in life was nailing a cat to a plank of wood while performing some autopsy while it was still alive. Over the course of an hour.

Ok, great reason to create a registry of Bedwetters also, then (however).

Whenever you move into a new house, you will be required to inform all your new neighbors that you were a persistent bedwetter past the age of 5.

Since all past bedwetters are dangerous and cannot be trusted. It is a behavior that once practiced may never leave the person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there especially given a one in a million encounter.

The majority of animal abuse cases do not involve psychopathic individuals. Neglect, accidents, and one-time assaults are more common and not much worse than what happens to farm animals or the billions of poor castrated pets.

But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose some of that rationality. Animal abusers are dangerous and cant be trusted.

At least you admit to being irrational. I score you full points for that honesty. But do you really think someone who keeps 24 cats in their house and lives in squalor should be on a public registry? Or what about someone who participated in blood sports that were legal in their own country before they moved here? The first deserves our pity, the second needs either a one-way ticket back home or a quick education on what's acceptable in their new homeland. Neither needs to be saddled with this

But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose (sic) some of that rationality.

Exactly. You admit yourself that you are not nearly as rational when it comes to acts of cruelty against animals.

Don't get me wrong - I love animals. Had a number of pets as a kid. But, lists like these ones are an extremely slippery slope and are really just politicians playing against people's fears and/or lack of rationality, or are a way to mask real problems. Lists create an environment for a person to be judged for the rest of their life (because, ya know, everybody ELSE is messed up, but I'm perf

Loss of rationality on the subject is precisely the reason why they chose animal abusers to enact these new unconstitutional laws.

Consider: why don't they do it with murderers? Well, because they don't think they could get the laws passed, because people like you are far more concerned about cute little puppies and cows than people.

No, they'll do this first. Prevent the people from getting jobs, subject them to perpetual shame and humiliation.

a state that every American, with any kind of attention span, knows is broke and needs to CUT spending is creating more financially wasteful bureaucracy. California you truly love to live up to your title as the land of fruits and nuts, don't you?

As somebody who (a) values privacy and finds government's invasion of it abhorrent; but (b) has seen some of the results of chronic animal abuse, I feel a bit like the proverbial Christian Scientist with an appendicitis attack.

From the animal-rescue point of view, the world is full of crazy and vicious people who cruise around "adopting" animals for subsequent abuse. This includes dogfighters looking for bait, people who produce crush films, hoarders, puppy mill operators, crazed cat ladies, people who practice killing and torture rituals, and even idiots who just want a fresh puppy every year or so. Most animal adoptions take place on a sort of honor system, the potential for abuse is huge, the actual amount of abuse going on is both shocking and sickening, and there simply isn't any money for any investigation or follow-up.

From the invasion of privacy standpoint, it should be observed that there are also plenty of animal-loving lunatics abroad in the land. That would be the folks who think that animal abusers should be tortured, castrated, deprived of their children, burned out of their homes, or otherwise "suitably" punished for their misdeeds. People exist who believe that the death penalty as it's administered here is too mild for animal abusers. Such a list in their hands would be downright dangerous.

There must be a way that law enforcement could share information regarding convicted abusers with licensed shelters and rescue groups without making such information readily and publicly available in a one-stop database.

Chelsea King's murderer was nicely listed. Now an innocent 17 year old girl is dead, having probably spent the last moments of her short life in terror and misery, because she was foolish enough to go for a run.

How, precisely, did the list help her?

Personally, I think the lvl 3 sex offender list should be retitled to the "no legal consequences for murdering the scumbags on this list" list, but that's just me.